Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > And you'd claim that the usage licence of those programs allow taking,
> > analyzing and distributing the resulting memory image after linking
> > with their compiler? 
> 
> No (unless you pay them per copy). Because they don't allow copying
> and you can't own a copy without paying for it (their "we don't sell 
> copies, we license rights to use"*** stance aside for a moment).
>  
> >                      So that, in effect, you would be allowed to use
> > this process for generating a symbol table from the library and
> > distribute this without restriction?
> 
> Stuff like extracted symbol tables is non-copyrightable. You can 
> copy and distribute it as much as you want (enforceable contractual 
> restrictions aside for a moment).
> 
> > 
> > Care to quote the passage from their licences that permits this, or
> > some court law that states that symbol tables are not considered
> > derived works?
> 
> See above.

My eyesight seems to get worse.  I fail to see a quote of a court
ruling stating that extracted symbol tables would not fall under the
original copyright.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum